Bottom Right Default
State Name: New Jersey
State Name underscore: New_Jersey
State Name dash: New-Jersey
State Name lower underscore: new_jersey
State Name lower dash: new-jersey
State Name lower: new jersey
State Abbreviation: NJ
State Abbreviation Lower: nj

MND NewsWire features plain and simple interpretations of industry related data and events written in a manner that maintains the interest of random readers while still catering to the perspective of a housing market professional.

Remember the tale of six
blind men who were asked to describe an elephant so each grabbed hold of a piece
of the beast. The man who took hold of
the tail described the elephant as a rope, the one who touched the leg said it
was a pillar, and the one who felt the trunk said the elephant must look like a
snake.

Pretty much the same thing
happened when Senator Christopher Dodd released his proposed bill to Restore
American Financial Stability. While some of the people who might be expected to
react such as The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the New York Stock Exchange have
thus far been silent, a lot of individuals and groups have grabbed the piece of
it that they care about and are either praising the bill - or bashing the hell
out of it.

Washington
Post columnist Steven Pearlstein
in an interview on MSNBC yesterday called the bill "one of the silliest
compromises I've seen in Washington in a long time." He said that the bill's requirement that the
Federal Reserve regulate the largest banks and only the largest banks hangs a
sign over those bank's doors saying "too big to fail." He also faulted the number of loopholes
exempting various types of derivatives from the law's requirements.

The
Mortgage Bankers Association focused on the bill's efforts to modernize the
regulatory structure for mortgage banking firms. In a press release that almost beat Dodd's
bill into the hands of the press, Robert E. Story, Jr. CMB, Chairman of the
association said that MBA was "concerned that this bill could be headed
down several of the same wrong paths as the legislation that moved through the
House late last year." He said that
the bill "does not provide uniform national regulation of all mortgage
banking firms, and thus further solidifies the patchwork of state and local
laws that increase costs for borrowers and lenders alike."

He applauded
the bill for moving away from the "one size fits all" approach to
risk retention" by recognizing that some underwriting requirements, loan
types, and business models are inherently low risk but said that the bill
should provide explicit exemptions for qualified loans that exhibit certain low
risk characteristics from bill's provision that the underwriter retain a
portion of those loans on its books in a risk sharing arrangement. He singled out, in particular, commercial real
estate loans and residential loans meeting conventional underwriting
guidelines.

The American Bankers
Association (ABA) said it opposes the new bill as it now stands and "is
suggesting a number of areas that
need to be changed: including the
approach to consumer protection, which continues to separate prudential and
consumer regulation; the elimination of the thrift charter; the elimination of
the Federal Reserve's authority over state member banks; issues within the
resolution mechanism; the weakening of federal preemption; and the failure to
address accounting issues in any fashion.

"We oppose this bill because it will subject traditional banks, which did
not cause this crisis, to heavy new regulation, while non-banks will have even
further competitive advantage," said Edward L. Yingling, ABA's president and
chief executive officer. "The future of
traditional banks will be unnecessarily put at risk and their ability to
provide the credit our economy needs will be undermined. Progress has
been made, there is still an opportunity to achieve regulatory reform, and ABA
will support the continuing efforts of Chairman Dodd and the rest of the Senate
Banking Committee to reach agreement on a workable bill."

The
Council of Institutional Investors, a nonprofit
association of public, union and corporate pension funds, applauded the bill's
efforts to "address the serious failures by corporate boards that
contribute to the financial crisis.

The Council said, it was pleased at
the corporate governance provisions requiring directors of public companies to
be elected by a majority vote of shareholders and reaffirms the Security and
Exchange Commission's (SEC) authority to issue "proxy access" rules
that would make it easier for investors to nominate board candidates.

The
Council also expressed satisfaction with provisions to strengthen the
regulation of credit rating agencies, trading in over-the-counter derivatives,
and improve the resources and independence of the SEC.

Republicans immediately criticized
the process leading to creation of the bill. Senator Dodd had been working as a
committee of two with Bob Corker, (R-TN), a member of the Senate Banking
Committee to craft the bill, but recently had gone off on his own to finish the
process. The Wall Street Journal quoted Corker as saying that, while he was
disappointed that bipartisan efforts had reached an impasse he would continue
work toward a bipartisan bill. He said,
however, that he would not support any bill that included an independent,
standalone Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Sen.
David Vitter (R., La.), another member of the committee said, "I think Dodd's been pulled
back by the White House and pushed to take a pure partisan bill." He also called the Consumer Financial
Protection agency "a complete nonstarter," one that no Republicans on
the committee would support.

Harvard Law professor Elizabeth
Warren, chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel that oversees the
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has become the public face of advocacy for
consumer financial protection. She expressed
support for the bill and criticized the banking communities' "ferocious
lobbying for business as usual."
She said that Senator Dodd had taken a important step by advancing new
laws to prevent the next banking crises and that the upcoming series of votes
will make the choice clear, "families or banks."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a press release, "This is a
strong bill. We hope the Committee and the Senate will move forward quickly to
pass comprehensive reform. We need a strong, independent consumer financial
protection agency that is accountable for setting and enforcing clear rules
across the financial marketplace. And we need strong authority to
limit risk-taking and protect the taxpayer. Enacting reform will help
reduce uncertainty about the rules of the road going forward. Passing
strong reforms here at home will also give us the ability to put in place a
level playing field internationally, with high standards. As the
President said, as the bill moves forward, we will take every opportunity to
work with Chairman Dodd and his colleagues to strengthen the bill and will
fight against efforts to weaken it."

So a Wiseman said to all of
the blind men, their hands still all over the elephant, "All of you are
right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each
one of you touched the different part of the elephant."

Or maybe this is a
different tale - one that ends with the moral "it all depends on whose ox
is gored."

Comments

March 17, 2010
To: MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE BANKING COMMITTEES AND TO ALL SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. TO ALL CONCERNED CITIZENS.
URGENT: TAKE THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM OUT OF FEDERAL BANK SUPERVISION AND DO NOT MERGE THE OTS INTO THE OCC OR CEASE EXISTENCE OF THE THRIFT CHARTER OR THE TRIFT BANK HOLDING COMPANY FORM OF OWNERSHIP
I first emailed this plea to various members of the House and Senate Banking Committees in April 2008. I emailed the same plea on or about March 14, 2010, and followed up with a phone call to each committee member’s office expressing the same plea on March 15, 2010. AND WHAT DID I SEE RELEASED BY SENATOR DODD? A BILL THAT GIVES THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM MORE POWER. ARE YOU SENATORS NUTS OR DO YOU JUST NOT GET IT?
I worked as a bank examiner. After serving in numerous capacities, I can credibly tell you that the Federal Reserve System (Fed), its 12 Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors, should NOT be involved in bank regulation and, at the same time, engaged in setting monetary policy. This inherent conflict of interest is the reason we are in the banking crises that we are in today. MONETARY POLICY AND BANK SUPERVISION CANNOT BE DONE TOGETHER BY THE SAME AGENCY. LET ME REPEAT. IT’S A BLATANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
The previous Fed chairman continually lowered interest rates, promoted the housing boom by encouraging the use of exotic mortgage products, and refused to write regulations to address issues related to the inherent risks associated with exotic mortgage products. As a result, no bank examiner, Federal or State, in his or her right mind could or would dare do anything substantive to hinder the subprime mortgage explosion that ensued. THIS IS THE WAY IT REALLY WORKS IN REAL LIFE, REALLY! YOU GUYS DON’T GET IT. YOU SET UP THERE AND LISTEN TO THE FED CHAIRMAN AND FED GOVERNORS BLOW SMOKE UP YOUR COLLECTIVE DRESSES AND BUY IT. EITHER YOU DON’T GET IT, YOU DON’T WANT TO GET IT, OR YOU’RE TOO LAZY TO TRY TO GET IT.
NOW DODD AND THE REST OF YOU LAZY WASHINGTON INSIDERS WANT TO GIVE THE FED SUPERVISION OVER BANKS WITH $100 BILLION AND MORE IN ASSETS AND ALL BANK HOLDING COMPANIES WITH CONSOLIDTATED ASSETS OF $50 BILLION AND OVER? I worked as an examiner and I can tell you for a fact that the Fed has had supervision responsibility over bank holding companies of every size as a result of legislation passed by both the house and senate. They’ve had examination staff in bank holding companies with consolidated assets of $50 billion and over for years. THEY WERE ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH! Now you want to give them supervision over something they’ve always had supervision over? Are you nuts? You just don’t care about the facts? Don’t care about how things really are? Or are you Washington insiders who want to keep the good ole boys at the Fed in power because you’re too scared or lazy to do other wise?
And you and Dodd want to reward the Fed by giving them supervision of banks with assets of $100 billion and over? They have never examined that size institution in their history. The OCC examiners our nation’s largest banks and has since the beginning of time. DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT? OR DO YOU SIMPLY NOT CARE? The Fed does not have enough examiners with the necessary skill sets to examine banks that large. The Fed examines small community state banks. DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT? WHY WOULD GIVE THE FED THE BIGGEST BANKS TO SUPERVISE WHEN THEY HAVEN’T THE RESOURCES TO DO SO EFFECTIVELY? THAT’S THE OCC’S SPECIALTY. DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT?
The Fed chairman stated, as every past chairman has, in testimony before a house subcommittee on March 17 that the Fed needs supervisory oversight over small state member banks too in order to establish smart monetary policy. BULL CRAP! The Fed chairman, the governors or their staff do not use data from bank exams or examiners for anything. They use date provided by economists on a macro level. Economists think bank examiners are below their level of esteem and would never as examiners for data in order to establish economic policy. IT DOESN’T HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE? BUT YOU GUYS KEEP BUYING THAT TIRED LIE YEAR AFTER YEAR. If that were true, the Fed Chairman and Paulson wouldn’t have run over to a closed session of congress in the middle of the night in early 2008 with the sudden realization that the our country and the rest of the industrialized countries were on the brink of a great depression. In fact, both of those clowns kept telling the public that everything was fine, the fundamentals of the economy were strong and that we had reached a bottom. AS A BANK EXAMINER, I AND MY COLLEAGUES KNEW FOR OVER A YEASR PRIOR TO THAT EMBARRASSING MEETING WITH YOU THAT THE ECONOMY WAS NOT FINE. NO ONE AT THE FED KNEW BECAUSE THEY DO NOT USE BANK EXAMINATION OR BANK EXAMINER DATA OR IMPUT! THAT’S HOW IT REALLY IS. THAT’S REALITY. DO YOU NOT GET IT?
DO YOU NOT ALSO SEE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT THE FED FACES DUE TO TRYING TO SUPERVISE BANKS AND SET MONETARY POLICY? I DON’T CARE WHAT OTHER COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES ALLOW THEIR CENTRAL BANK TO DO BOTH, IT’S A CONFLICE TO INTEREST! DO YOU NOT GET IT?
CORRECT THIS CONFLIT NOW. DON’T GIVE THE FED POWER OVER BANKS THEY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH. TAKE THEM OUT OF SUPERVISION. THEY COULDN ‘T EFFECTIVELY SUPERVISE BANK HOLDING COMPANIES. THEY HAD EXAMINERS IN LEHMAN BROTHERS AND EITHER COULDN’T UNDERSTAND THE ACCOUNTING FRAUD LEHMAN HAD GOING OR THEY CHOSE TO TRY TO SWEEP IT UNDER THE CARPET. THE LATTER IS MORE LIKELY BECAUSE THAT’S HOW FED EXAMINERS OPERATE IN MANY CASES INVOLVING HIGH PROFILE, OR LARGE COMPLEX FINANICAL ISNTITUTIONS WITH “POLICAL” CLOUT. THAT’S HOW THE FED WORKS IN REAL LIFE.
There needs to be one single Federal Bank Regulator. However, if this cannot be agreed upon due to gridlock in both chambers then at least remove the Fed from all supervisory responsibilities and leave everything else as is. Leave the OTS, the OCC, the FDIC, and the States in their current supervisory roles. The consumer protection idea is sound, but any agency would be better at overseeing this vitally important responsibility than the Fed.
DO NOT DO AWAY WITH THE THRIFT CHARTER, THRIFT HOLDING COMPANIES OR THE OTS. Because if you do, it will leave no option for large organizations to convert to a form of ownership that will allow for both regulatory oversight and for the organization to continue to operate in its present form and structure. And the OCC does not have the manpower or experience to supervise thrifts. You will disrupt the OCC, thrift operations, and stymie the mortgage industry, bringing it to a complete halt.
Also, if the thrift charter and the thrift holding company were no longer available as options, what would or could have been down with Wall Street firms to bring them under the Federal Supervision umbrella? Nothing unless such organizations were forced to divest or breakup operating units simply to enable them to become bank holding companies under the BHC Act. If were to happen then those actions would have a serious detrimental impact on a firm’s customer base and it would result in a negative compounding affect on the nation’s economy.
In addition, thrifts are charted to promote home ownership and mortgage lending. The thrift charter and importance will be of even greater benefit going forward. The banking industry will pull back from mortgage lending, and has done so already, by making lending standards more difficult to achieve. This will mean that thrifts will become the major player in rebuilding our economy which is heavily dependent upon mortgage lending and real estate construction. Do away with the thrift charter, the thrift holding company and the OTS and you have essentially guaranteed that the U.S. economy will never recover and that Federal regulatory oversight will become bogged down in confusion, become over taxed from a resource standpoint, and contribute to our economic demise.

Founded in 2004, Mortgage News Daily has established itself as a leader in housing news, analysis and data. Our innovative social media platform combines industry leading content and data with an active community of industry professionals, to accomplish our primary goal - keeping our readers informed.